IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v10y2014i1p1-292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Kinship Care for the Safety, Permanency, and Well‐being of Children Removed from the Home for Maltreatment: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Winokur
  • Amy Holtan
  • Keri E. Batchelder

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines whether kinship care is more effective than foster care in ensuring the safety, permanency and wellbeing of children removed from their home for maltreatment. The review summarizes findings from 102 studies involving 666,615 children. 71 of these studies were included in meta‐analyses. Kinship care is a viable option for the children that need to be removed from the home for maltreatment. However, policy issues remain to balance the cost‐effectiveness of kinship care with a possible need for increased levels of caseworker involvement and service delivery. A considerable number of the included studies showed weaknesses in their methodologies and designs. There is a need to conduct more high quality quantitative studies of the effects of kinship care based on robust longitudinal designs and psychometrically sound instruments Abstract BACKGROUND Every year a large number of children around the world are removed from their homes because they are maltreated. Child welfare agencies are responsible for placing these children in out‐of‐home settings that will facilitate their safety, permanency, and well‐being. However, children in out‐of‐home placements typically display more educational, behavioural, and psychological problems than do their peers, although it is unclear whether this results from the placement itself, the maltreatment that precipitated it, or inadequacies in the child welfare system. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effect of kinship care placement compared to foster care placement on the safety, permanency, and well‐being of children removed from the home for maltreatment. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases for this updated review on 14 March 2011: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, ERIC, Conference Proceedings Citation Index‐Social Science and Humanities, ASSIA, and Dissertation Express. We handsearched relevant social work journals and reference lists of published literature reviews, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA Controlled experimental and quasi‐experimental studies, in which children removed from the home for maltreatment and subsequently placed in kinship foster care were compared with children placed in non‐kinship foster care for child welfare outcomes in the domains of well‐being, permanency, or safety. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts identified in the searches, and selected appropriate studies. Two review authors assessed the eligibility of each study for the evidence base and then evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies. Lastly, we extracted outcome data and entered them into Review Manager 5 software (RevMan) for meta‐analysis with the results presented in written and graphical forms. RESULTS One‐hundred‐and‐two quasi‐experimental studies, with 666,615 children are included in this review. The 'Risk of bias' analysis indicates that the evidence base contains studies with unclear risk for selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, reporting bias, and attrition bias, with the highest risk associated with selection bias and the lowest associated with reporting bias. The outcome data suggest that children in kinship foster care experience fewer behavioural problems (standardised mean difference effect size ‐0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.49 to ‐0.17), fewer mental health disorders (odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.62), better well‐being (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.64), and less placement disruption (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.69) than do children in non‐kinship foster care. For permanency, there was no difference on reunification rates, although children in non‐kinship foster care were more likely to be adopted (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.49), while children in kinship foster care were more likely to be in guardianship (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.40). Lastly, children in non‐kinship foster care were more likely to utilise mental health services (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.37). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review supports the practice of treating kinship care as a viable out‐of‐home placement option for children removed from the home for maltreatment. However, this conclusion is tempered by the pronounced methodological and design weaknesses of the included studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Winokur & Amy Holtan & Keri E. Batchelder, 2014. "Kinship Care for the Safety, Permanency, and Well‐being of Children Removed from the Home for Maltreatment: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-292.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:1-292
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2014.2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.2
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2014.2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W. R. Prosser, "undated". "Family Structure, Substitute Care, and Educational Achievement," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1140-97, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    2. Lawler, Michael J., 2008. "Maltreated children's emotional availability with kin and non-kin foster mothers: A sociobiological perspective," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(10), pages 1131-1143, October.
    3. Akin, Becci A., 2011. "Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 999-1011, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ashrita Saran & Howard White & Kerry Albright & Jill Adona, 2020. "Mega‐map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the interventions to improve child well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.
    2. Emily C Keats & Aamer Imdad & Jai K Das & Zulfiqar A Bhutta, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Efficacy and effectiveness of micronutrient supplementation and fortification interventions on the health and nutritional status of children under‐five in low and middle‐income countries: a ," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36.
    3. Kiraly, Meredith & Roff, Joanne, 2023. "‘We’re just kids as well’: The experience and support needs of young kinship carers in Australia," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Kaylor-Tapscott, Makena L. & Sullivan, Maureen A., 2024. "Caregiver stress, parenting, and child outcomes among grandfamilies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    5. Konijn, Carolien & Admiraal, Sabine & Baart, Josefiene & van Rooij, Floor & Stams, Geert-Jan & Colonnesi, Cristina & Lindauer, Ramón & Assink, Mark, 2019. "Foster care placement instability: A meta-analytic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 483-499.
    6. Cavanaugh, Daniel L. & Sutherby, Carolyn G. & Sharda, Elizabeth & Hughes, Anne K. & Woodward, Amanda T., 2020. "The relationship between well-being and meaning-making in kinship caregivers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Ferraro, A.C. & Maher, Erin J. & Grinnell-Davis, Claudette, 2022. "Family ties: A quasi-experimental approach to estimate the impact of kinship care on child well-being," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    8. Xu, Yanfeng & Bright, Charlotte Lyn, 2018. "Children's mental health and its predictors in kinship and non-kinship foster care: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 243-262.
    9. Rehana A Salam & Jai K Das & Zahra Hoodbhoy & Karim Rizwan Nathani & Zulfiqar A Bhutta, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Effects of lifestyle modification interventions to prevent and manage child and adolescent obesity: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-33.
    10. Berrick, Jill Duerr & Hernandez, Julia, 2016. "Developing consistent and transparent kinship care policy and practice: State mandated, mediated, and independent care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 24-33.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hébert, Sophie T. & Esposito, Tonino & Hélie, Sonia, 2018. "How short-term placements affect placement trajectories: A propensity-weighted analysis of re-entry into care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 117-124.
    2. Davis, Elizabeth E. & Krafft, Caroline & Forry, Nicole D., 2017. "Understanding churn: Predictors of reentry among families who leave the child care subsidy program in Maryland," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 34-45.
    3. Elizabeth Fernandez, 2014. "Child Protection and Vulnerable Families: Trends and Issues in the Australian Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Font, Sarah A., 2015. "Are children safer with kin? A comparison of maltreatment risk in out-of-home care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 20-29.
    5. Zinn, Andrew & Orlebeke, Britany, 2017. "Juvenile court judicial expertise and children's permanency outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 46-54.
    6. Cénat, Jude Mary & McIntee, Sara-Emilie & Mukunzi, Joana N. & Noorishad, Pari-Gole, 2021. "Overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare system: A systematic review to understand and better act," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    7. Welch, Vicki & Jones, Christine & Stalker, Kirsten & Stewart, Alasdair, 2015. "Permanence for disabled children and young people through foster care and adoption: A selective review of international literature," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 137-146.
    8. Elgin, Dallas J., 2018. "Utilizing predictive modeling to enhance policy and practice through improved identification of at-risk clients: Predicting permanency for foster children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 156-167.
    9. Aguiniga, Donna M. & Madden, Elissa E. & Hawley, Alicia, 2015. "Exploratory analysis of child protection mediation permanency placement outcomes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-27.
    10. Tullberg, Erika & Vaughon, Wendy & Muradwij, Nawal & Kerker, Bonnie D., 2019. "Unpacking “support”: Understanding the complex needs of therapeutic foster parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Malvaso, Catia G. & Delfabbro, Paul H., 2020. "Description and evaluation of a trial program aimed at reunifying adolescents in statutory long-term out-of-home care with their birth families: The adolescent reunification program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    12. Balsells Bailón, M. Àngels & Urrea-Monclús, Aida & Vaquero Tió, Eduard & Fernández-Rodrigo, Laura, 2022. "The voices of children, mothers, and fathers: Can parenting programs improve reunification processes in the Spanish child protection system?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Sonia Hélie & Marie-Andrée Poirier & Tonino Esposito & Daniel Turcotte, 2017. "Placement Stability, Cumulative Time in Care, and Permanency: Using Administrative Data from CPS to Track Placement Trajectories," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Akin, Becci A. & Yan, Yueqi & McDonald, Thomas & Moon, Jungrim, 2017. "Changes in parenting practices during Parent Management Training Oregon model with parents of children in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 181-191.
    15. Ubbesen, Mads Bonde & Petersen, Liselotte & Mortensen, Preben Bo & Kristensen, Ole Steen, 2012. "Out of care and into care again: A Danish register‐based study of children placed in out-of‐home care before their third birthday," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2147-2155.
    16. Yampolskaya, Svetlana & Callejas, Linda M., 2020. "The effect of child mental health service use on child safety and permanency in substance misusing families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Waid, Jeffrey & Kothari, Brianne H. & Bank, Lew & McBeath, Bowen, 2016. "Foster care placement change: The role of family dynamics and household composition," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 44-50.
    18. Day, Angelique & Willis, Tamarie & Vanderwill, Lori & Resko, Stella & Patterson, Debra & Henneman, Kris & Cohick, Sue, 2018. "Key factors and characteristics of successful resource parents who care for older youth: A systematic review of research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 152-158.
    19. Van Holen, Frank & Blijkers, Cindy & Trogh, Lenny & West, Delphine & Vanderfaeillie, Johan, 2020. "Unaccompanied children in Flemish family foster care. Prevalence and associated factors of placement breakdown," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Zinn, Andrew & Cusick, Gretchen, 2014. "Juvenile court pathways to legal permanence for children in substitute care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 90-100.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:1-292. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.